Disparities in Care Among Patients With Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices Undergoing MRI

被引:7
作者
Cavallo, Joseph J. [1 ]
Zhang, Yapei [2 ]
Staib, Lawrence H. [3 ]
Lampert, Rachel [4 ]
Weinreb, Jeffrey C. [1 ]
机构
[1] Yale Sch Med, Dept Diagnost Radiol & Biomed Imaging, New Haven, CT USA
[2] Yale Sch Med, New Haven, CT USA
[3] Yale Univ, Dept Biomed Engn Radiol & Biomed Imaging & Elect, New Haven, CT USA
[4] Yale Sch Med, Dept Internal Med Cardiol Electrophysiol, New Haven, CT USA
关键词
CIED; MRI; insurance; SAFETY; DEFIBRILLATOR; PACEMAKERS; SAFETY; RISKS;
D O I
10.1016/j.jacr.2017.07.014
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Importance: Abundant data now demonstrate safe use of MRI for patients with non-MR conditional cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). However, CMS does not currently reimburse these examinations. Objective: Determine whether differences in reimbursement between commercial insurance carriers and CMS are impacting the completion rates of MRI examinations ordered in patients with non-MR conditional CIEDs. Methods: This study retrospectively examined patients with non-MR conditional CIEDs for whom an MRI was ordered between January 1, 2015, and August 31, 2016. Completion rates of MRI in patients with Medicare or Medicaid insurance were compared with those in patients with commercial insurance. Before November 7, 2015, all patients with non-MR conditional CIEDs underwent MRI examinations at no charge to the patient regardless of insurance. After that date, outpatients with only Medicare or Medicaid insurance coverage received an Advanced Beneficiary Notice that informed them that they would have to pay out of pocket for the entire cost of their MRI examinations. Results: Of 143 MRI examinations ordered, 127 met inclusion criteria for analysis. In the post-Advanced Beneficiary Notice period, outpatients with commercial insurance were significantly more likely to complete their MRI examinations (19 of 22 patients, 86%) when compared with patients with Medicare or Medicaid insurance (1 of 36 patients, 3%; P < .0001). No significant difference was observed in the inpatient setting. Conclusions: Due to CMS coverage policies based on now outdated concepts about MM safety, patients with non-MR conditional CIEDs and Medicare or Medicaid insurance are undergoing significantly fewer appropriate diagnostic MRI examinations than patients with commercial insurance.
引用
收藏
页码:1566 / 1571
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] MRI and cardiac implantable electronic devices; current status and required safety conditions
    A. W. M. van der Graaf
    P. Bhagirath
    M. J. W. Götte
    Netherlands Heart Journal, 2014, 22 : 269 - 276
  • [42] Electroconvulsive Therapy in Patients With Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices A Case Report and Systematic Review of Published Cases
    Purohith, Abhiram Narasimhan
    Vaidyanathan, Sivapriya
    Udupa, Suma T.
    Munoli, Ravindra N.
    Agarwal, Sheena
    Prabhu, Mukund A.
    Praharaj, Samir Kumar
    JOURNAL OF ECT, 2023, 39 (01) : 46 - 52
  • [43] Innovations in Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices
    Khurrum Khan
    Jitae A. Kim
    Andra Gurgu
    Muzamil Khawaja
    Dragos Cozma
    Mihail G. Chelu
    Cardiovascular Drugs and Therapy, 2022, 36 : 763 - 775
  • [44] Is diversity harmful?—Mixed-brand cardiac implantable electronic devices undergoing magnetic resonance imaging
    Christoph Alexander König
    Florian Tinhofer
    Thomas Puntus
    Achim Leo Burger
    Nikolaus Neubauer
    Herbert Langenberger
    Kurt Huber
    Michael Nürnberg
    David Zweiker
    Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 2022, 134 : 286 - 293
  • [45] Cardiac Magnetic Resonance in Patients With Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices Challenges and Solutions
    Rajiah, Prabhakar
    Kay, Fernando
    Bolen, Michael
    Patel, Amit R.
    Landeras, Luis
    JOURNAL OF THORACIC IMAGING, 2020, 35 (01) : W1 - W17
  • [46] Evaluation of image quality of wideband single-shot late gadolinium-enhancement MRI in patients with a cardiac implantable electronic device
    Schwartz, Sarah M.
    Pathrose, Ashitha
    Serhal, Ali M.
    Ragin, Ann B.
    Charron, Jessica
    Knight, Bradley P.
    Passman, Rod S.
    Avery, Ryan J.
    Kim, Daniel
    JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, 2021, 32 (01) : 138 - 147
  • [47] A protocol for patients with cardiovascular implantable devices undergoing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): should defibrillation threshold testing be performed post-(MRI)
    Burke, Peter Thomas
    Ghanbari, Hamid
    Alexander, Patrick B.
    Shaw, Michael K.
    Daccarett, Marcos
    Machado, Christian
    JOURNAL OF INTERVENTIONAL CARDIAC ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, 2010, 28 (01) : 59 - 66
  • [48] Viewpoint: Cardiac implantable electronic devices and magnetic resonance compatibility: was it really necessary?
    Sutton, Richard
    Benditt, David G.
    JOURNAL OF INTERVENTIONAL CARDIAC ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, 2019, 55 (02) : 125 - 127
  • [49] MRI in Patients with Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices and Fractured or Abandoned Leads
    Greenhill, Mark J.
    Rangan, Pooja
    Su, Wilber
    Weiss, J. Peter
    Zawaneh, Michael
    Unzek, Samuel
    Tamarappoo, Balaji
    Indik, Julia
    Tung, Roderick
    Morris, Michael F.
    RADIOLOGY-CARDIOTHORACIC IMAGING, 2024, 6 (03):
  • [50] A review and analysis of stereotactic body radiotherapy and radiosurgery of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices
    Aslian, Hossein
    Kron, Tomas
    Longo, Francesco
    Rad, Roya
    Severgnini, Mara
    AUSTRALASIAN PHYSICAL & ENGINEERING SCIENCES IN MEDICINE, 2019, 42 (02) : 415 - 425